[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shantavva W/O.Ramappa Adin vs Hanamant S/O Ramappa Adin on 3 December, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
RFA No. 100079 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100079 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR,
TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.
2. SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. SINDOORAPPA ADIN
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
AT/POST. KAMATAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-584121.
3. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. MUTTANNA BANGARI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, WARD NO.6,
AT/POST. LOKAPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT-584122.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
4. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. KASHINATH HUDED
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, WARD NO.6,
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
AT/POST. LOKAPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT-584122.
Date: 2025.12.04 10:04:37
+0530
5. SMT. REKHA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.
6. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR,
TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.
...PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
RFA No. 100079 of 2021
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. S.C.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HANAMANT S/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BEHIND LAKE, SHIRUR,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.
2. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. DYAVAPPA BAGAWATI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHOUDAPUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.
3. SMT. SHARAVVA W/O. HANAMANTH ADIN
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEHIND LAKE, SHIRUR,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.
4. SMT. SAVITRAVVA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR,
TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.
5. SMT. MANJULA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR,
TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.19/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,
BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FORPARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
RFA No. 100079 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the
CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated
26.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.19/2014 on the file of the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition
and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and
the counter claim made by defendant No.1 to declare that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have half share in R.S.Nos.36/1 and
36/2 situated at Mudotagi village of Kustagi Taluk and VPC
No.45 of Hanamasagar village in Kustagi Taluk have been
rejected by the trial court.
3. In the counter claim, defendant No.1 had also
sought for half share in the service benefits of deceased
Ramappa Adin, who was working as a teacher in
Government School.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has
drawn the attention of this to court the issues framed by
the trial court, which are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule
"B" properties are the hindu undivided ancestral
properties of themselves and defendants?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that, they are in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property along with the defendants?
3. Whether defendants prove that, there was a
partition took place between plaintiffs and
defendants by way of family arrangement held on
14.9.2001?
4. Whether the defendants prove that, deceased
Ramappa had executed relinquishment deed in
favour of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.8 along
with family arrangement partition deed during his
lifetime?
5. Whether the defendants prove that, suit filed by the
plaintiffs is bad for non-inclusion of other
properties like R.S.No.36/1 and house property
VPC No.45?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
6. Whether defendant No.1 proves that, the
land R.S.No. 1049/3 measuring 5Acres situated at
Shirur village is his self-acquired?
7. Whether defendants are entitled for the relief of
counter claim as prayed in "ABC" column of written
statement?
8. Whether plaintiffs are entitled their share in the suit
schedule properties? If entitled, what is their
extent?
9. What order or decree ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE:
1. Whether suit is in time?
5. The additional issue was also framed, as to
whether the suit is in time. While answering issue Nos.1 to
4 and 6, the trial court has held that, admittedly,
Sri.Ramappa Adin was working as a teacher and he was
having separate earnings. The trial court therefore
proceeded to hold that suit item No.3 in schedule-B bearing
R.S.No.1049/3 of Shirur village which was purchased by
Ramappa Adin in the name of defendant No.1 who was then
a minor, and he himself had executed the sale deed on
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
behalf of the purchaser, the same has to be construed as a
self-acquired property of Ramappa Adin. In that view of the
matter, though the relinquishment deed dated 14.09.2001
marked as Ex.D18 is not a registered instrument,
nevertheless, the trial court has proceeded to hold that
change of the revenue entries at that point of time would
clearly show that there was a partition between the family
members, more particularly, between plaintiff No.8 and
defendant No.1 in the year 2001, and the two branches of
the family have been enjoying the partitioned properties
from 2001. Therefore, the trial court has proceeded to hold
that there was a prior partition. The trial court also noticed
the fact that the properties which fell to the share of
plaintiff No.8 were not included in the suit schedule which
itself proves that parties have admitted to the partition that
took place in the year 2001. On that ground, the trial court
has held that the suit is bad for non-joinder or non-inclusion
of all the joint family properties. On the same lines, since
the suit of the plaintiffs was rejected, the counter claim
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
made by defendant No.1 was also rejected for the same
reason.
6. However, learned counsels on both sides jointly
submit that matter requires re-consideration. Firstly, the
relinquishment deed is admittedly an unregistered
document. Secondly, the claim of defendant No.1 in the
counter claim regarding service benefits of Sri.Ramappa
Adin is also not decided by the trial court. Learned counsel
for the respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 also submits
that in the counter claim at prayer-A, defendant Nos.1 and
2 had sought for half share in the property bearing VPC
No.45 of Hanamasagar of Kustagi Taluk which has not been
considered by the trial court. It is also pointed out from
prayer-A that, in the counter claim the properties bearing
R.S.Nos.36/1 and 36/2 situated at Mudotagi village were
purchased by Sri.Ramappa Adin in the name of plaintiff
No.8, who was a minor, under sale deed dated 16.08.1989.
However, during the lifetime of Sri.Ramappa Adin, he sold
the said two properties under registered sale deed dated
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
27.03.2001 and Sri.Ramappa Adin died on 02.02.2003.
Therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that the
sale proceeds recovered from the sale made in the year
2001 have been retained by the family of the plaintiffs to
the disadvantage of the defendants. It is for this reason, in
the counter claim defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sought for
partition of the said two properties bearing R.S.Nos.36/1
and 36/2. Insofar as property bearing VPC No.45 of
Hanamasagar village is concerned, the contention of
plaintiff No.8 is that, plaintiff No.1, mother of the other
plaintiffs purchased the property in the year 1992 in the
name of plaintiff No.8 when he was a minor. It is contended
that plaintiff No.1 purchased the property by her self-
earnings. However, no material is placed on record to show
that plaintiff No.1 was earning substantially to purchase the
said property from her own earnings.
7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned
counsels on both sides, this court is of the considered
opinion that the matter requires re-consideration at the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB
HC-KAR
hands of the trial court. The plaintiffs as well as the
defendants should be given an opportunity to place
additional evidence, if required, either to support their
contention or to demolish the contentions of the other side.
Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
26.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.19/2014 on the file
of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Bagalkot is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) Parties are directed to appear before the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot on
12.01.2026 without waiting for further notice.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:vh
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
